Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
evan@debian.org wrote:
>The main question I want to ask debian-legal is this:
>
> Does the anti-DRM requirement in the CCPL 3.0 draft, without a
> parallel distribution proviso, make it incompatible with the
> DFSG?
I see no reason to believe that the DFSG forbids such a clause. Do you?
>The exception is that the CCPL 3.0 has an anti-DRM (or anti-TPM)
>provision that doesn't allow distribution with copy protection features.
>The traditional wisdom is that prohibiting use of TPM puts an undue
>restriction on developers and doesn't let them experiment with
>TPM-required platforms. (Some console game systems, for example, require
>TPM for a program to run on the system.) Restricting the systems that a
I do not understand well this objection. These systems need software to
be digitally signed, and the license does not forbid me to distribute a
signature for an executable I compiled as long as I satisfy the other
licensing requirements.
Even if the work (think about an e-book) had to be encrypted in a way
that does not allow the user to use it on an hypotetical compatible but
DRM-free system then I believe that parallel distribution (even if not
explicitly mentioned) would satisfy the license because it would allow
the recipient to "exercise the rights granted to them under the License".
(This without starting to debate the freeness of DRM protection clauses.)
> 1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of
> our principles?
If it were an exception then this would have been explained in the GR
itself, I see no reason to believe this. "we do not think that..." is
obviously a clarification to me.
> 2. If it was a clarification, does this mean that anti-DRM clauses
> like the one in the FDL are compatible with the DFSG?
Yes.
> 3. If so, is the anti-DRM clause in the CCPL 3.0 draft similar
> enough to the FDL's anti-DRM clause for us to consider it
> compatible with the DFSG?
Yes, it's even less strict.
>My personal opinion is that in light of GR 2006-01 this kind of
>restriction is compatible with the DFSG. (I also personally think that
>anti-DRM clauses are really bad for Free Content; see
>
> http://evan.prodromou.name/Free_content_and_DRM
Parallel distribution solves this.
--
ciao,
Marco
Reply to: